107 Cited authorities

  1. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 4,964 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
  2. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 2,987 times   233 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
  3. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

    472 U.S. 797 (1985)   Cited 1,623 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
  4. Beck v. Prupis

    529 U.S. 494 (2000)   Cited 493 times
    Holding that in order for a RICO plaintiff to have standing he must establish that his injuries were caused by a predicate act within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962
  5. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.

    552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 759 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs must make more than a mere " threshold showing," they must establish facts " by the preponderance of the evidence"
  6. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co.

    472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 729 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the typicality requirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff's proposed class "include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway" when the plaintiff "claim[ed] she was deceived and injured"
  7. Sprague v. General Motors Corp.

    133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 896 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because "[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the terms of the plan itself"
  8. Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

    84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 946 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
  9. Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 611 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."
  10. Avery v. State Farm

    216 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2005)   Cited 679 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding claims of non-Illinois plaintiffs insufficient where the only connection to Illinois is the headquarters of the defendant and the fact that a scheme "was disseminated" from Illinois
  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 28,310 times   1149 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
  12. Section 2310 - Remedies in consumer disputes

    15 U.S.C. § 2310   Cited 1,334 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Setting certain thresholds for a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which if not met, deprive a federal court of jurisdiction to hear such a claim
  13. Section 17.50 - Relief For Consumers

    Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50   Cited 1,259 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a deceptive trade practice claim may consist of a breach of an implied warranty
  14. Section 402.607 - Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over

    Wis. Stat. § 402.607   Cited 19 times

    (1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted. (2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a nonconformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this chapter for nonconformity. (3) Where a tender has been accepted: (a) The buyer must within a reasonable

  15. Section 2101 - Short title

    Cal. Com. Code § 2101   Cited 16 times
    Explaining that Division 2 falls within the Uniform Commercial Code and applies to the sale of goods
  16. Section 11-2-101 - Short title

    Ga. Code § 11-2-101   Cited 10 times

    This article shall be known and may be cited as "Uniform Commercial Code -- Sales." OCGA § 11-2-101

  17. Section 2.101 - Short Title

    Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.101   Cited 9 times

    This chapter may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code--Sales. Tex. Bus. and Comm. Code § 2.101 Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 2343, ch. 785, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1967.

  18. Section 40-12-108 - Private remedies

    Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-108   Cited 4 times

    (a) A person relying upon an uncured unlawful deceptive trade practice may bring an action under this act for the damages he has actually suffered as a consumer as a result of such unlawful deceptive trade practice. (b) Any person who is entitled to bring an action under subsection (a) of this section on his own behalf against an alleged violator of this act for damages for an unlawful deceptive trade practice may bring a class action against such person on behalf of any class of persons of which

  19. Section 402.101 - Short title

    Wis. Stat. § 402.101

    This chapter shall be known and may be cited as uniform commercial code - sales. Wis. Stat. § 402.101